Letters to the Editor: Biden has nothing to lose if he supports expanding the Supreme Court

Members of the Supreme Court pose for a group photo in Washington on April 23.
Members of the Supreme Court pose for a group photo in Washington on April 23.
(Getty Images)

To the editor: I voted for President Biden because, in comparison to more activist politicians at both ends of the ideological spectrum, he is a moderate who was capable of capturing a majority of the voters, a tremendously difficult feat at this point in time. As with most first-term presidents, we started devouring Biden after his honeymoon period ended. (“The idea of expanding the Supreme Court to blunt its right-wing bias gains traction,” column, Dec. 17)

Having said that, I think it is time for him to get much more aggressive, since he will be criticized if he does, criticized if he doesn’t.

Because Republicans have so politicized the courts and no longer respect the leadership of the chief justice, it is definitely time for Biden to choose one the several proposals at hand to change the makeup of the Supreme Court.


While many have been reluctant in the past to change the court, such a move now is totally justified, even necessary if we want to maintain our democracy.

Lynn Lorenz, Newport Beach


To the editor: Simply because some liberal constitutional law professors tell a liberal columnist that the U.S. Supreme Court is biased and faces a legitimacy crisis does not make it so.

Let’s remember that in 1987, Democrats turned “Bork” into a verb when Sen. Ted Kennedy and his fellow travelers misrepresented the jurisprudence of perhaps the most qualified nominee for the high court in the past 50 years.

What is referred to as “cheating” to get Justice Neil Gorsuch confirmed was simply playing by established rules, some of which were even endorsed by then-Sen. Joe Biden, who in 1992 said the Republican president should not try to fill a Supreme Court vacancy in an election year.

Most Americans probably cannot name a single Supreme Court justice, let alone all nine. So any poll that purports to prove there is a “crisis” is meaningless.

Michael Leb, Pasadena


To the editor: I have a different plan. Let’s contract the court back to its original size of six justices. Let’s do what many businesses do when downsizing: last hired, first fired (bye-bye, Trump appointees).

Also, let’s require at least a two-vote margin for a ruling, otherwise the case is remanded back to the lower court. These rulings affect citizens for decades, so let’s make sure there is a clear margin of agreement. One reason our society is so split is because of the one-vote margins on so many complex and controversial issues.

Let’s also have term limits for the justices. I propose eight years.

Finally, let’s require a mandatory confirmation vote by the full Senate within 30 days of nomination by the president, regardless of the procedural machinations of the Senate’s leaders. Let’s make the judicial branch truly co-equal with the other branches.

Daniel Harrison, Chula Vista